UPDATE: Statement from the Michigan ACLU
The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will not hear the State of Michigan’s appeal in a challenge to the state¹ sex offender registration law, which was dealt a major blow by a federal appeals court in a unanimous decision last year.
Today’s announcement effectively requires the Michigan legislature to replace the existing law, thus creating an opportunity to reform Michigan’s registry, which has been widely criticized as bloated and ineffective. The lawsuit was originally brought by the ACLU of Michigan and the University of Michigan Clinical Law Program in 2012.¹
“Courts have repeatedly recognized that Michigan’s sex offender registry is not just unconstitutional, but it’s an abject failure,” said Miriam Aukerman, ACLU of Michigan senior staff attorney. “Our communities deserve effective public-safety measures that are based in facts and research, not wasteful and counterproductive policies based in fear. We look forward to working with the legislature on a common-sense approach that serves our communities.”
In 2006 and 2011, the state legislature expanded the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA), originally passed in 1994, creating harsher measures for registrants. The amendments retroactively made most registrants register for life and imposed geographic exclusion zones barring them from living, working, or spending time with their children in large areas of every city and town. Additionally, the legislature added extensive and onerous new in-person reporting requirements that make it a crime for registrants to borrow a car, travel for a week, or get a new email account without immediately notifying the police. The changes were imposed without due process or a mechanism for review or appeal for the vast majority of registrants.
The plaintiffs in the case must all register for life despite decades old offenses and the fact that they do not pose a risk to their communities. Some plaintiffs were convicted as teens of consensual sex with younger teens, one person never committed a sex offense, and another was never convicted of a crime. All of the plaintiffs are parents or grandparents and as a result of SORA they cannot attend their children or grandchildren’s graduations, sports events or school performances. Because the state posts pictures and extensive personal information about the plaintiffs online – including maps of where they live and work – they have repeatedly lost housing and jobs, and one plaintiff even faced death threats.
By denying the review, the Supreme Court leaves in place a decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which declared that portions of the law are unconstitutional. Noting the lack of evidence that registries actually protect the public, the appeals court held that restrictions added to the law after its original passage cannot be applied retroactively and that the state cannot cast people out as “moral lepers” solely on the basis of a past offense without a determination that they currently present a risk.¹ The state appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Research proves that registries do nothing to keep us safe – in fact, they makes us less safe, as people with past offenses are stigmatized and pushed to the margins of society, making it harder for them to get jobs or an education, find homes, or take care of their families,” said Paul Reingold of the University of Michigan Law School. “Smart public policy and current research show that this law should be reconsidered from the ground up.”
Michigan has nearly 44,000 registrants, making it the fourth largest sex offender registry in the country, with the third highest registration rate per capita of any state. Michigan adds about 2,000 people to the registry each year, or about 5 a day.
To learn more about this case, go to: www.aclumich.org/SORAinfo
===============
Breaking news: The Supreme Court also denied review in Snyder v. Doe, a challenge to Michigan’s sex-offender registry (Whether retroactively applying a sex-offender-registry law that classifies offenders into tiers based on crime of conviction, requires certain offenders to register for life, requires offenders to report in person periodically and within days of certain changes to registry information, and restricts offenders’ activities within school zones imposes “punishment” in violation of the ex post facto clause.)
Related
First big SCOTUS order list has lots of big “cert denied” decisions in big sentencing cases
So now what does this denial mean? There are now many legal variables in question. For once, federal laws adam wash act (sorna) is now applying differently in different circuits and / or states. What is unconstitutional in ones is considered constitutional in others. It is a great day for post sorna registrants within the 6th circuit area, at least for now. Perhaps a new case in other federal circuits should file and cited the DOJ brief in support of the 6th? What distinguished the 6th denial of cert from other bad ruling from other circuits (as mentioned in my other post), is the called of the DOJ opinion from Scotus in the matter. Maybe this denial of cert was more significant than the rest of SO cases because of the DOJ supporting the 6th?
My husband wanted to tell you this, If the US Supreme Court agreed to hear appeal they would agreed with us. That means 500,000 people come off the registry. Due to them denying it, it says, without saying, leave it up to each state supreme court to figure it out. They basically said, we don’t want this battle!
I am trying to understand the underlying impact on Michigan SO. After denying Doe vs Snyder, does it mean we go back to pre 2006 rules only or other issues will be addressed like tiers base system, life registration, traveling and so forth. If the other issues will be addressed, which court will handle that?
This can be used in other circuits, e.g. the Tenth, et al, as reference point going forward on challenges against the registry, SORNA, etc.
Being off paper is off paper and no one should have to register when off paper, in addition to not having to register while on paper.
This is certainly a disappointing result for those not in 6th and/or MI. It makes for a tougher, longer, more expensive battle in court after court. I’ve never so wished to have been right, but was obviously quite wrong in my SCOTUS prognostications. I’m amazed fewer than 4 Justices felt it merited review. I guess SCOTUS sees as properly adjudicated by the 6th and review would be a waste of time? Or there’s not “enough” of a dispute among the Circuits? Or maybe they were hoodwinked by USSG reframing the question? Perhaps now if Snyder is used in other Circuits and is disregarded, then SCOTUS is more interested? To me, SCOTUS has given more questions than answers!
This does not bode well for PA’s chances of getting accepted.
So now the question is, what combination of burdens comprises “punishment”? Is it the combination of all the burdens? Is it some of the burdens?
I’m curious what the op-eds, etc, will have to say about this!
P.S. I’m giving up reading SCOTUS tea leaves and similar prognostications.
This is a sad day… They had a chance to fix the mistakes of Doe v Smith and choose not to…
Didnt they get it right? They said denied, that means they agree with Doe. What isnt anyone understanding?
What does this mean? Pre-2006 requirements? Or will I be removed? 04-20-2000 was my conviction!
The Supreme Court had several options. The worst would have been them accepting the case and reversing. The best would have been them accepting and affirming. Denying certiorari leaves the decision in place for the 6th District. If the exact case had been brought from any other district, we can presume the Supreme Court would have left the case intact with those cases also. So what will it take to bring a case in the 9th District to get the same benefits?
Maybe SCOTUS is doing this on purpose with a goal in mind of creating so much rift among the states that eventually they’ll be forced to hear a case on the registry as a whole rather then ex post facto of particular time periods. Basically, create such a mess, that the ultimate outcome is inevitable?
This is a total win for our side. The more lower courts rule these laws and their enhancements as unconstitutional the better. If it ever goes to SCOTUS they will have a solid foundation to make change on. They and yes we want a history of case law behind this before it gets to them. They don’t want a battle royal in their court, they want to affirm lower court rulings to do the job for them. Also this will help cut down on new law schemes down the road. Lawmakers will understand that these laws will be shot down long before it gets to the highest court. The legal atmosphere will help create an environment where the registry go out with a wimper
Did the Colorado ruling encompass the entire registry or just SORNA? If I remember right many of their arguments could be applied to the entire registration scheme.
Denying cert doesn’t mean they agree in whole with the decision, it only means they didn’t disagree with it enough to hear it. Really, denial is the 2nd best option of the three we had available: grant and affirm, deny, or grant and reverse.
Anyone outside MI, even within the 6th, will probably still have to fight it in court. The 6th’s ruling applied to *MI* law violating the US Constitution. So those in TN, KY, and OH will still need a judge to say their State’s laws are also Unconstitutional. Granted, this is a much easier path now, as the ruling is binding on all Federal courts in the 6th. But it will still be up to the RCs to show their State’s MLs are similar enough to MI’s.
As SSUN addresses, it will be an even more difficult and expensive battle for those outside the 6th. Many don’t have the resources to raise a challenge and/or don’t want to file pro se and have their names attached to a suit.
With a little time to digest this, I do see how this can legally work out…eventually. Suppose someone in LA (since they have very onerous MLs that probably top MI’s) sues in the 5th Circuit. The case goes all the way to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and despite Snyder, they rule in favor of the State. Suppose then the is appealed to SCOTUS. This would present SCOTUS with two options: deny, thus creating the complete confusion of allowing Snyder to stand yet also allowing an “anti-Snyder” to stand (read: major conflict within the Circuits); or accept and clear up the issue. Unfortunately, unless there is a ripe case out there somewhere (perhaps the aforementioned case in the 11th), the next chance is sometime at least a year off.
In short, it’s a helpful result, just not the end-all-be-all help for which many were hoping.
P.S. Good for you, Bobby! Kick up your heels, brother!
Please no one takes this wrong, though I feel conflicted, and feel bad for the people not in Michigan, Tennessee Ohio or Kentucky, I for one am gleaming from ear to ear, that I will finally be off this stupid thing, once and for all, since I should of never been placed on it to begin with, because Michigan had no registry in 1992, and I was not ordered to register by a judge, which clearly violated my right to due process, and other constitutional rights.
My question is now since Michigan’s registry was found to be punishment and unconstitutional for pre 2006 and 2011 registrants, will people such as my self, be able to sue the state of Michigan for knowingly and clearly violating our Constitutional Rights as Americans. AGAIN I am sorry that it was not granted review so that everyone in the country would have a chance at removal from this registry.
Cowards, all of them…
I am with you bobby, I feel the same way! does the ACLU do civil law suits?
Janice
Will California have a lawsuit base on this one?
What do we need help you get this done?
After this ruling, there will be a segment of registrants (those to whom the ruling apply) within the 6th that will NOT have to report in person, adhere to loitering and residence restriction, and are subject to individualize and risk assessment? Am I missing anything else? Meanwhile, in the rest of the country, we still subject to the aforementioned restrictions and the lack of risk assessment.
Now I wonder how this could impact IML? If a RC in Michigan wants to travel overseas, and they were sentenced, say, 20 years ago, then they shouldn’t be subjected to IML at all. Correct? I mean, that’s a punishment as a direct result of a 20 year old conviction, is it not?
I just looked on the MI, offender list, I think its time to unplug the list.
what I said about the 11th circuit court earlier was incorrected. The McGuire case currently pending before the 11th circuit has almost identical issues (expo facto) raise and even went beyond. It looks like we may have another shot at cert in scotus within in a year or more. Check out the filing petition currently pending in the 11th circuit below. A must read!
http://equaljusticeunderlaw.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Supplemental-Brief.pdf
So in California does this open the door to challenging laws like internet listing. Adopted in 2002 could this now be considered ex-post facto for those convicted before 2002? How about laws preventing someone from sponsoring a spouse to come over to the US? IML ex-post facto?
It’s great to see the attorney in the McGuire case cited the USSG brief in the Snyder case. But he did not cite the PA case or the recent Colorado case, and also failed to mentioned the packingham troubling statement. I wonder why.
http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2017/10/03/moral-lepers-supreme-court-declines-michigan-sex-offender-registry-case/
This may not be binding in all other circuits, but by them denying review the court implicitly states that it agrees with the reasoning behind the decision and that there was no judicial error when the lower court decided this case..Yes, we still need to file in individual districts, once again “but”, there goes retro-active tiers “by, by, CA’s retro tiered system” by,by ML’s retro application, by, by any and all restrictions or regulations applied after the fact of conviction. I don’t mean to repeat myself, but….
Issue: Whether retroactively applying a sex-offender-registry law that classifies offenders into tiers based on crime of conviction, requires certain offenders to register for life, requires offenders to report in person periodically and within days of certain changes to registry information, and restricts offenders’ activities within school zones imposes “punishment” in violation of the ex post facto clause.
That denial speaks volumes man…”Punishment”. That opens the door for so many suits it’s ridiculous…..We can now bombard the courts with all kinds of of other claims such as: cruel and unusual punishment, ex post facto , and as the court already stated, unreasonable, arbitrary, oppressive official actions, Separation of powers, and in every other way. Man, everything I have in my motion is now extremely relevant and all my arguments now have confirmed standing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Screw the Minnesota case, it wasn’t going to prevail the way it was argued……..I am frigging jumping for joy, AJ and Chris, do you guys see what this means????? The key is that by denying Snyder, it is now basically US Supreme Court confirmed “PUNISHMENT”!!!!!!!!<<<<<Amazing.
Like I said in my other post, they will have to totally revamp the registry and only apply it to those that they can prove either with the preponderance of the evidence standard, or I believe a beyond a reasonable doubt standard, in some kind of tribunal with all the protections as outlined in the Minnesota case, that we pose a significant enough threat to re-offend (as they claim they have done in the Minnesota case) in order to encroach on our fundamental rights. This is what I am reading into this….